Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Proposal

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Proposal

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Comment: see Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation I'm proposing that we scrap every rule, policy and convention we have on the site. And then work on making new things that we actually need and are relevant to the site today. I also propose we remove all user rights from all accounts, and go through some mass re-elections, under the new rules for user rights (if it's decided that there are any rules) This is probably crazy. And I'm probably stupid for even thinking it. But something needs to be done if we're going to actually get some activity going here. NovaHawk 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC) As I came up with the idea, I support. I propose it starts as soon as humanely possible. I have time to try and organise it. As I've mentioned and shall continue to mention, without a big change round here, (possibly with) this place is going to be dead, and also, lets basically consider this both myself and Mr. Flare's last stand :P . CJC95 (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC) (whoops, should have attributed the main idea to you, sorry :P NovaHawk 00:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)) (its fine, I should have realised that the idea was so great that you'd be really excited and rush to post it CJC95 (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)) Sounds like a good idea. Might I also suggest that, for the time being, we don't need such a bureaucracy of QCG/news/admin/crat/CU/chatmod/etc etc etc. Just admins, and have all the current ones removed (they can stand for election ofc). Maybe that's even more crazy. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Nope, knocking it all down and starting again was what I was going for NovaHawk 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Sure, as long as it actually gets done and we don't end up with bureaucracy getting in the way of removing bureaucracy. Berrybrick (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'd like to give this three days and then start if there's a majority for moving ahead.. otherwise it'll just be a dead forum. NovaHawk 01:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Go ahead. The only thing I don't see being necessary is removing rights. Sure, lets remove rights from people who don't have a use for them or are inactive. Sure, let's decrease the number of groups and rights request processes. I just don't see it being necessary to remove rights from active users who use the rights. I figure active sysops/crats should keep those rights but we can start fresh with everything else (sort of like how the "founder" of a Wikia wiki starts out with crat and sysop, we'll essentially be the founders of 2014 Brickipedia). On a different but similar note, we should sort of do the same with some most/all of our articles so that our content isn't identical to Brickia's. Rewriting our articles, especially important ones, will stop Google's anti-plagiarism algorithms from harming our search rankings. However rewriting articles requires actual editing and effort so its doubtful anyone will do this. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I propose we get rid of all ratings bar C1 and Featured. No one really cares about ratings, and it should be obvious as to which page needs editing. This can allow for more FAs, and possibly a FA of the week? And for rights - all active users within the last 30-60 days should keep their rights if they have any, and inactive ones can rerun or request etc. TheNightingale - Sky Above, Voice Within 01:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC) It might be obvious which pages need edited, but that doesn't mean they're easy to find without clicking on "Random Page" a few dozen times. The rating system lets you view all articles that are part of a specific rating at once, so I'm not in support of removing it. I agree that active contributors should keep their rights, though. - Bug (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Per Bug, but if we do remove the rating system, let's start marking pages as stubs when they're short and could use expansion. Since we have so many topics on this wiki, we can have specific stub categories like Wikipedia, such as "Adventurers stubs" with its own stub template and category. That way if someone wants to improve Adventurers articles, they can easily go to that category. It's simpler than the rating system we have. --ToaMeiko (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Strong oppose we used to have stubs, that just means small pages with no content have big banners across the top, doesn't solve any problems. Going down to a 3-4 tier rating system sounds like a much better idea. (If someone wants to find all the adventurers articles in the lowest rating category, that should be built into the ratings system (via massratings)) —Unsigned comment by UltrasonicNXT (talk • contribs). So you're saying a visitor to the site will be able to know that a page isn't as complete as it should be because they'll know what "Class 4" means right off the bat. Having a message box saying "this page is a stub. you can help by expanding it" gets that point across to those who don't understand our confusing rating system. Same thing with message boxes for pages needing updates or pages needing cleanup. It's much more clear and specific to the improvements a page needs than "Class 4". There's a reason many other major wikis use message boxes like this. --ToaMeiko (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) If an article has 1 sentence of content and a bi white space, it's obvious it's not as complete as it could be. UltrasonicNXT (talk) Before I forget, and I apologise for not putting this in before, CJC suggested breaking everything we need to cover up into stages, then discussing everything about that stage before moving onto the next. I've put a page up here, if anyone has any proposals or topics for discusion, please add. Obviously, we don't have to do it like this, it's just an idea, feel free to oppose doing it like this and suggest alternatives, etc NovaHawk 02:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC) OK, so, since we've started jumping ahead and talking about all the individual issues, I've set up a forum here, where you can view all the other forums. Some things from here have been copied over, hope that's all right. I'll close this one off for now. NovaHawk 23:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)